THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METAPHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS OF DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM by JAMES HENRY EDWARDS A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of PSYCHOLOGY and PHILOSOPHY We accept this thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS. Members of the Department of PSYCHOLOGY and PHILOSOPHY THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1952 ABSTRACT The Epistemological and Metaphysical Implications of Dialectical Materialism. The theory of dialectical materialism is essen• tially the product of the joint efforts of Karl Marx and Prederich Engels. Such men as V. I. Lenin, George Plekha- nov, J. Dietzgen, and J. B. S. Haldane have added very little either in terms of original contributions or in terms of refining and elaborating the main tenets of the theory. In this respect, V. I. Lenin's influence on the theory is negligible; what he has written is primarily a criticism of the deviationists and opposing schools of thought, and also a substantiation of the original postulates of Marx and Engels. The same may be said of Plekhanov and Dietzgen with the exception that they are considered, by Lenin and most of the Marxian "purists", as deviationists owing to the modifications they attempted in the epistemology. Such Marxians, as J. B. S. Haldane and many of the present day socialists may also be classified as deviationists as they consider dialectical materialism more in terms of technique rather than as a highly integrated revolu• tionary philosophic schematism. In view of these divergencies of opinion, the writer has treated dialectical materialism as primarily the theory formulated by Marx and Engels and reiterated by Lenin. The views of the Marxian deviationists are, however, also considered wherever they throw light on the aims and postulates of the philosophy of ffiarx and Engels. The schematism examined is always given in the final analysis, the same test, namely, does it substantiate the over all claim that this is a dynamic, completely meaningful universe in which man is able to actively influence his environment, and in which man is, himself, influenced by the environment. The general conclusion is that, owing to the Marxian concept of mind as a reflector and the rejection of any type of teleological factor, the active determinism enunciated in this philosophy is not implicit in its basic metaphysical and epistemological tenets. In addition, owing to the concepts of abrupt break, emergence of novelty, and the dynamic nature of terms and entities, it is not possible to logically deduce from a plurality of causes a specific effect, e.g., the inevitability of the collapse or negation of capitalism. In other words, the writer maintains that there is no sound basis for the claim that certain events must inevitably occur at some future time. i In short the theory is an unsuccessful attempt to postulate an active deterministic philosophy through merging two schools of thought, namely, materialism and idealism. CONTENTS Page Introduction I Part 1. The Heritage of Dialectical Materialism. 1. 1. Greek Materialism. 1. 2. Modern Materialism. 14. 3. Views on the Nature of Mind and Matter. 18. 4. The Hegelian Dialectic. 24. Part II. The Epistemological and Metaphysical Implications of Dialectical Materialism. 35. 1. The Subject-Object Concept. 35. 2. The Concept of Mind. 38. 3. The Unity of Opposites. 53. 4. The Negation of the Negation. 57. 5*. Quantity-Quality. 59. 6. The Theory of Causality. .62. III. Conclusion. 70. I. Introduction Karl Heinrich Marx, born in Trier in 1818, came from a middle class Jewish family. He was educated at the universities of Bonn and Berlin where he came in contact with the young Hegelians who represented the most advanced section of German intellectuals at that time. Germany was at that time just emerging from a state of economic backwardness and political reaction. The industrialism and the democratic concepts . which had become part of the every day life of such countries as Britain and Prance, were only beginning to develop. Opportunity to observe the German development against the background of the new democratic industrial societies, English industrialism and English trade-unionism, as well as French post-revolutionary political theories and struggles, was available for observation and analysis. Thus, it was against a background of new political and economic ideas, as exemplified in the writings of the Utilitarians, and the early English and French socialists, and also the radicalism of the young Hegelians, that Marx's youth was lived. The influence of these ideas plus the problems of the period resulted in Marx becoming critical and dissatisfied with the II. extreme Idealism of Hegelian philosophy. He, therefore, began to search for a more practical mode of expression of social criticism than the Idealism of the young Hegelians. In 1843, Marx moved to Paris where he took over the editorship of the "Deutsch-franzosische Jahrbucher". Only one issue appeared but it contained a clear statement of Marx's newly formed theory of history. The formulation and writing of this theory led to a detailed study of political economy, and, in addition, the publishing of the Nationalflkonomic und Philosophle. Later in 1845, Marx moved to Brussels where, with the collaboration of Prederich Engels, he wrote Die Deutsche Ideologic. This work was a critical discussion of German philosophy which freed both Marx and Engels from Hegelian Idealism and consequently was instrumental in the formulation of the theory of dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism, like most theories, is the result of much that has been handed down from other ages. In a sense, it is two concepts blended into one, i.e., the dynamic concept of reality and the concept of determinism emanating from Materialism. Both these con• cepts have been part of philosophic speculation, in some form or other, for over two thousand years. Their history may be traced to the Greek thinkers of the fifth century Ill. B.C., in particular, Heraclitus and Democritus. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries A.D. these two con• cepts or theories were amended and elaborated until they developed as two opposing forces, namely, Idealism and Realism. The later half of the eighteenth century witnessed an attempted compromise of these two schools under the guidance of Immanual Kant. The nineteenth century saw the revolt from this compromise in the extreme Idealism of Hegel. Here, in brief, is Hegel's metaphysical theory in which Marx found the instrument needed for the resurrec• tion of Materialism. Hegel maintains that the world is in a constant;, state of flux, and that its pattern of change is dialec• tical, i.e., thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Subsequently, if man is to know reality he must also think in terms of the dialectic; for in the final analysis reason and reality are identical. Owing to the dynamic nature of reality, finite minds only grasp it partially. However, if finite minds act consistently with the "correct" process of thinking, namely, the dialectic, then they will realize more and more of reality which is in the Absolute, Idea, Spirit or Cod. Now, the correct process of thought is that which is consistent with the dialectic, for the universe is by its very nature dialectical. That is, the universe IV. when considered in terms of its parts is composed of opposites or contradictories, which act and react upon one another, resulting in a concatenation of thesis- antithesis-synthesis. Each one of these triads, from the Hegelian point of view, results in a higher synthesis, because they are all oriented toward the realisation or self-realisation of the absolute Idea, Spirit, Mind or God, which is the Whole. Thus, with the basic assumption that the nature of the cosmos is mind-like, Hegel is able to formulate a theory that allows for change, and yet maintains an Absolute or Whole that is complete in all respects within itself. The social implication of this theory will appear quite alien to a society educated in terms of twentieth century democracy. This theory of dialectical development led Hegel to maintain that the State is the socio-political manifestation of the supreme Idea or Universal in the particular. Subsequently, if one is to live a rational and ethical life, his behaviour and aspirations should be oriented in terms of the state. Marx, as we indicated earlier, found the reactionary social philosophy of Hegel inadequate in view of the social developments and problems that eon- fronted the societies of his era. He did, however, see in the dialectic method a medium which, when refined, V. would be invaluable in relating and .explaining the various manifestations of reality. To elaborate, dialectical materialism asserts that this world is composed of matter, the highest form of which is mind, and that it is a world that is always in a process of change. The change is accounted for by the theory of opposites or contradiction. Each unit, each manifestation of nature contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. Logically stated, each thesis or entity implies or contains its antithesis or opposite which, owing to the dynamic nature of reality, will contra• dict or act on the thesis or entity as it is at any parti• cular Instance in time; and will therefore, by uniting with its opposite, lead to a new thesis or higher synthesis. Although within the change process there is a ' rhythm or uniformity of motion it is, in a sense, only in terms of duration blocks, that is, a point is reached where the change is abrupt. For example, at what point does a collection of rolling stones become an avalanche, or at what point is a stream a river? Engels explains this type of change by his quantity-quality theory which in essence maintains that revolutionary or abrupt change is part of the nature of the universe.